Monday, October 31, 2005

The UK Telegraph reports that the Prince of Wailers plans a visit to America to teach us to be tolerant of Islam.

Short of it: He blathers that we in America should appreciate Islam more for all it offers the West. "Prince Charles, who is about to embark on his first official foreign tour since his marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall, wants Americans - including Mr Bush - to share his fondness for Islam."

Well, you can be as fond as you wish, we however, aren't quite as fond of it right now.

Two stories appeared in Philippine newspapers over the weekend. Their trustworthiness is not known to this blog, although relatives live in The Republic. A story from the Daily Tribune dated October 31 states that President Arroyo prayed to Allah at a political event earlier in the week.

"'I am praying to the Lord Allah, that the peace process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is at a high point and maybe bring us to the end of a bold and fruitful journey. Ramadan does not only signify physical restraint, it means a deeper reconciliation with God and I have taken the opportunity on this holy month to call for a period of national renewal in the Philippines. For Catholics, they should mean a nationwide program, for by all should seek the sacrament of reconciliation and penance. For Muslims, observing the annual start of the Ramadan for celebrating the greatness of God, and for other denominations, similar programs in their churches,' she said."

This doesn't sound like someone who is reliable in the war against Islamism. Of course President Bush continues to stress that Islam is a religion of peace, and America doesn't have a violent separatist movement constantly killing civilians as the Philippines does. However, for a self-identified Christian to pray to Allah is a sign of weakness, and indeed, it certainly could embolden the Moro movement to consider escalating action to achieve their ends. If a Christian prays to Allah, that would make the militants believe that she believes that they are correct in their views, and she accepts a humiliated second place for her faith.

As usual for muddleheaded thinking like this, as soon as the words of peace are out of her mouth, the Islamists make a mockery of her prayer. "Ramadan does not only signify physical restraint...." Then perhaps she can explain why attacks on people, even Muslims, continue to take place during this supposed holy time? Are those three Christians beheaded in Indonesia a figment of her imagination?

Unfortunately, the story continues with this bit of information from Arroyo's Executive Secretary, "Eduardo Ermita, for his part, hinted that it is next to impossible for the political opposition to succeed in destabilization efforts as the Chief Executive is now being guided by two Gods including Allah." Hmm, interesting statement. Does Arroyo think she can avoid her political problems by allying herself with the separatists who have killed many Filipino citizens? This source may be hostile to the Arroyo administration, however, this could be a troubling development. If Arroyo is trying to use the Moros to improve her political position, it could undermine her resolve to fight the GWOT.

More troubling is this statement by Ermita, "'The President is a very prayerful (person). I believe she is guided (by God) and I am sure all of you are. Whatever Allah says will happen, and if it is the fate of the President to lead this country forward then it will happen,' he said." Could you imagine President Bush or one of his administration saying something like this? The outcry from leftists and Christ-haters would be deafening. Why again is Ermita bringing up Allah unless the Arroyo administration is planning to use a peace plan with the Moros to gain allies against her opposition?

Perhaps the other newspaper account will shed some light.

The Manila Times reported on October 27 that "The Philippine government appears intent on granting the Moro Islamic Liberation Front its own territory to govern despite seething opposition by politicians worried about the dismemberment of the resource-rich southern Mindanao region. Under the peace agreement being negotiated with the MILF, the government will designate lands that the secessionist group could administer."

If true that is a very dangerous development in the struggle against Islamism. Allowing a group to rule that has allegiance to something other than the federal government is a recipe for disaster. Also, how could the Philippine government continue their prosecution of terrorist acts if the group committing them are now part and parcel of the government of the area? Perhaps this is a tactic to allow the Philippine President to move in and destroy the separatist movement under cover of restoring public government if the Moros continue their attacks on the Filipino people.

The story states that some people are opposed to the reported plan. But the government spokesman claims they are in the minority. "Low-level government and rebel negotiators have agreed on how to award ancestral lands for the MILF to govern although the final package has yet to be approved by their higher-ups. However, a number of Mindanao politicians, led by Mayor Celso Lobregat of Zamboanga City, have criticized the plan. Lobregat said the concession will open the doors for the MILF to eventually take over the whole of Mindanao under the banner of ancestral lands."

This is a dangerous plan that may backfire on the Arroyo government. How could the Philippines continue to coordinate with countries fighting Islamic terrorists when part of the country has been turned over to a violent faction of them?

Could America and the West be affected by this apparent appeasement by the Philippine government? Would the Moro ruled areas become safer havens for those planning murders and other actions against free countries? Perhaps and perhaps not, however, it behooves the Arroyo government to reconsider these actions. Perhaps the quoted sources are organs of her political opposition, but if these events did take place, as reported, the ability to fight against Islamism will be crippled in the Philippines and elsewhere just because a politician wants to hold on to the reins of power. Maybe the extremist Democrats in American can take a lesson.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

From Fox News. It seems that a would be stick up artist didn't learn the rules of gun crime at criminal school.

After a successful hold up, the robber managed to get himself run over by his apparent accomplice, who barreled up in the alleged getaway vehicle, hitting the robber and his victim in the process. The less than useful partner then drove away, leaving the robber at the mercy of another driver.

It seems the hold up was seen by a friend of the victim, and she proceeded to play bumper tag with the suspect. Four times.

To make matters worse for the bad guy, he attempted to draw his gun, but only succeeded in shooting himself.

Perhaps during his next stint in the state's school for criminals, he may learn the correct way to carry out a crime. Or with his luck, maybe not.

Alan Colmes of Fox News had an interview with failed presidential candidate and national embarrassment John Kerry after a speech at Georgetown University.

Regarding the so-called outing of non undercover agent Plame, Colmes asked if the Senator expected someone in the White House to be indicted.

"SEN. JOHN KERRY: I don't have a clue. (The understatement of the century so far, perhaps that's why you lost the election?) I read what everybody else reads. Honestly, I don't know." (But I deserve to be President....)

Colmes hopes to bring out some vitriol, so he asked about resignations.

"KERRY: Well, I said about two years ago that I thought Donald Rumsfeld should resign because his management of the war has really been inexcusable. (Yes, quick victory is inexcusable) Every prediction made has been proven to be wrong. (Yes, Saddam's not out of power, the Iraqis aren't freed, it really is a quagmire, oh, and the constitution isn't acceptable to the majority of the Iraqis who approved it) He neglected the most important thing, which is do all you can to protect the troops. And still, there are problems with up-armored Humvees or armor. I think it's a disgrace, and I think he should have long ago resigned." (Right after I do because my whole career has been based on not supporting the troops)

Colmes has apparently forgotten the Democrat talking points from earlier in the war as he asks Kerry if he feels responsible because he voted to authorize the war. He forgot that the talking point is "not enough boots on the ground," but he and the buffoon Kerry get it backwards.

"KERRY: We're partly responsible, and I accept that responsibility. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't open our minds and our eyes to see the way forward. I believe that a change in our policy is a way to be successful, to be able to get our troops out of there while still standing up the Iraqis and while providing for the transformation that we need in terms of their responsibility and their ability to run the country. Right now, the large presence of American troops, according to General Casey, according to Melvin Laird, Richard Nixon's secretary of defense...(crosstalk)...are part of the problem. And many of us have felt that for some time, that so many American troops in this aggressive fashion on the ground are not helping what we're trying to achieve...." (You idiot Kerry, we're supposed to be short of troops! That's all you talked about during the campaign. Did you forget what you said? Now, according to the comic genius, we have too many troops there! It appears that BDS has discombobulated the left so much that they can't keep their story straight)

It's all wrong according to the silly Senator. He brings up the old discredited leftist lie about the world being behind us after 911 but Bush bungled it away; how our actions have angered one billion muslims, except apparently for the over fifty million freed in Afghanistan and Iraq; and again "Not putting in enough troops," (You just said the opposite jackass, can't even remember what you said one minute ago?) "not bringing our allies officially to the table...." (yeah, the coalition doesn't count)

Alan Colmes then tries puffing up the loser and ask him if he plans to lose again. Kerry is evasive, but he then launches into a speech about how he is willing to work with anyone for the country, although he never has. "Our job is not to fight with each other. Our job is to find the common ground and get good policies in place. And I think there are a lot of people of good will, here in the Senate, here in Congress, who are prepared to do that, but we need to have an administration that really wants to work in concert with us." Right, the president has never done any reaching out, like appointing Democrats to his cabinet, working on an education bill with Ted Kennedy, no President Bush did none of this stuff.

He also flaunts his international connections again, "As I said, I'm prepared to work to help get leaders in other countries, (Who, Castro, Chavez, and Kwazy Kim of Korea?) to help push -- we ought to have a bipartisan delegation that goes over there on behalf of the president and helps to make these things happen. But we've never been asked. (Perhaps because it's not your job? Dolt)

The interview ends with Kerry trying to sound above it all. "I don't want to go backward; I want to go forward. We've got some big issues. We've got a country that desperately needs to be energy independent. (Drill in ANWR then) There's so much we could do to create new jobs in America, to put people to work, to reduce the cost of gasoline for people. We're not doing it." Because it's not the job of government to do these things! Same old stuff, same old socialism, same old lack of ideas, same old fool.

John Kerry, go away. No one listened to you before, no one's listening now.

It appears that Halloween scares some of the half-men in Europe reports the Enemy Press AP. "So the mayor of Rankweil, a town near the border with Switzerland, has launched a one-man campaign disparaging Halloween as a 'bad American habit' and urging families to skip it this year." Post-Christian and Anti-American, is there something else to make it a trifecta?

"'It's an American custom that's got nothing to do with our culture,' (Mayor) Kohler wrote in letters sent out to households. By midweek, the mayors of eight neighboring villages had thrown their support behind the boycott. So had local police, annoyed with the annual Oct. 31 uptick in vandalism and mischief." Well, perhaps someone should set the mayors straight. Halloween isn't an American invention...it was first developed in... Europe!

Can't expect the Euros to remember anything these days apparently.

"Halloween 'undermines our cultural identity,' complained the Rev. Giordano Frosini, a Roman Catholic theologian who serves as vicar-general in the Diocese of Pistoia near Florence, Italy. Frosini denounced the holiday as a 'manifestation of neo-paganism' and an expression of American cultural supremacy. 'Pumpkins show their emptiness,' he said." For all that however, this little tidbit stands out. "To be sure, Halloween is big business in Europe. Germans alone spend nearly $170 million, on Halloween costumes, sweets, decorations and parties. The holiday has become increasingly popular in Romania, home to the Dracula myth, where discotheques throw parties with bat and vampire themes. In Britain, where Halloween celebrations rival those in the United States, it's the most lucrative day of the year for costume and party retailers. 'Without Halloween, I don't think we could exist, to be honest,' said Pendra Maisuria, owner of Escapade, a London costume shop that rakes in 30 percent of its annual sales in the run-up to Oct. 31. Metropolitan Police, meanwhile, haven't logged any significant increase in crime."

Court TV reported that a bodyguard (lover?) of Roy Horn of Siegfried and Roy fame is being treated like a woman, except for the pregnant part. "Siegfried Fischbacher is a 'tyrant' who overmedicates and humiliates the ailing Horn, who is still recovering from a tiger-mauling incident...'Siegfried was a tyrant and had loud, explosive outbursts at the plaintiff and at Roy,' says the civil suit filed by Louis Mydlach, a former Siegfried & Roy insider. '[Fischbacher] forced Roy to take medication, even when Roy begged to not be medicated, the suit claims."Looks like Mr Mydlach has some issues with Siegfried...cat fights can be so eeeevil. "Mydlach says his role changed from that of security guard to caretaker, 'in all the undignified matters....'" Really?

"Mydlach, 34, met Siegfried and Roy as a child when they hired his father's company for security services. He says he has a 'close and almost familial relationship,' with Horn, but presumably not close enough to give him legal rights over Horn's care." Yeah, they don't have those kind of "rights" in Nevada, say like San Francisco....

"Mydlach could not be reached for comment, but he told the Las Vegas Review Journal that he had photos, video and documentation to support his allegations." Hmm, perhaps it wouldn't be such a good idea to view those "videos," who knows what you might see.Siegfried will contest the suit "zealously." And get all hot and bothered no doubt.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Poor Lileks. He had such a bad experience for jury duty in his hometown. He had to stay available for two weeks! Fortunately, in Parts Unknown, jury duty is "One Day, One Trial."

Reporting For Duty:

I parked a few blocks from the courthouse and walked through the "seedy" part of downtown. The City of Parts Unknown has done an amazing job of cleaning up the sidewalks and cleaning out the people who used to inhabit the area. I walked by what I thought was a little drainage ditch, it turned out to be a little oasis park. That's not the only thing out of place. I saw a knot of people standing outside what appeared to be a copy shop, like a Kinko's or something. After a quick perusal of the area, I recognized a foreign flag from Parts Unknown that's a little south of Parts Unknown. Yes, right near the detention center and the Courthouse was an outpost of illegal alien documentation. Right outside the court was a group of people who had no right to be here. I wonder why the police didn't come by and arrest them? I guess we don't do that anymore.

When I reached the courthouse I noticed that the new usual safety devices were in order. Reading the sign was an eye opener. It said "Firearms Prohibited," and right under that it said "knives, chemical weapons, and sharp objects must be checked here." What?! I guess they're not prohibited, just check them at the door please. Oh, and by the way, you know how foreign languages are also put on the bottom of the sign? Well, here the foreign language was on the top! Does that mean that the court is usually used by those who don't belong here? Appears to be.

While walking through the building I noticed that the designers had cut quotes into the face of the stone walls inside the court. I read quotes from Hammurabi's Laws, Roman Law, Socrates, Gandhi and others. All the inscriptions were considering Justice. I continued along looking at the words of Justice and then I was hit by a jarring note. A large inscription from the Koran. What? Please, talk of Justice has nothing to do with the Koran. The "Justice" from the Koran doesn't apply to non-Muslims, while all the others were universal. Oh, there was a quote from the Bible, but it was hidden in the corner and was only two lines, while the Koran inscription was in the middle of the wall and at least five lines long. Can't be partial can we?

The Jury Room

Reaching the Jury Room wasn't hard, although, they forgot to put signs up. I checked in with the clerk, was given a badge and a jury handbook and took a seat. I was told to leave it where it was, so I just sat down. After a few minutes of waiting around looking at those other inmates of the jury room, the clerk stepped to the front of the room. She gave us some information about jury duty and then introduced a short film about the jury system in Parts Unknown. The title was I, The Jury or something like that. So we were indoctrinated into how noble and right it was to serve on a jury. If so, why do so many people try to avoid it?

About thirty minutes later a bailiff came in and a list of names was read off and these inmates trooped off to a courtroom to learn their fate. After about an hour of listening to my neighbors talking about their law practices, the clerk came to the front of the room and read off a list of names again. These poor unfortunates were not picked to go to a courtroom however, they were let off for lunch. A three hour lunch. Then back to the jury room. After that group left the room, the clerk stood up in front again and read a list of names, one that had my name on it. I hoped that we were being freed from service because no other court needed jurors that morning. However, no such luck, lunch for us too. Three hours. Out we trooped to our various locations.

Return To The Jury Room

After lunch, the Jury Room filled with new inmates who were ordered to appear in the afternoon. Did that mean that the early groups would be allowed to leave? No soap. My group was lined up like Bugsy's men on Valentine's Day and lead to the slaughter, er courtroom.

The Jury Box

We were led by a bailiff to the courtroom of the Honorable. After being seated in the gallery, the bailiff listed a group of names to sit in the box of twelve. My number was near the last of the line, so I didn't get called in the initial grouping. Twelve poor unfortunates were seated and then the proceedings began. The players introduced themselves then the exams began. Each potential juror was asked a set of questions by the Honorable, who you are, what you do, do you think you would be a fair juror? Then the prosecutor asked some questions of each juror, then the defense did their turn. All twelve were passed for cause by both sides! A wave of relief passed through the rest of us.

But wait, there's so much more! Now the peremptory challenges began. Each prospective was asked another set of questions by the sides. Some people played stupid, some played gung ho, each in their way apparently trying to get excused. One dumb kid acted like he wouldn't be unbiased, he got his wish, he was excused. Another, ex-military was let go for his strong beliefs. So on until all the peremptory challenges were over. Heh, unfortunately for them, the Honorable sent them back to the Jury Room, they thought they were on their way home. There were still seven people on the list ahead of me. Whew! Dodged a bullet. Not so fast said the Honorable. We still need alternates. Grrr. Well, there were only two needed. So the procedure began again. The next two were seated and the questioning resumed. Hooray! Both were passed for cause! We might have some winners. Of course the peremptorys began, each side has one. Beads of sweat began forming on the foreheads of us remaining. Please let them pass. And they did! The alternates were sworn in. The jury was complete! All those who found a way out of it were put back in the jury pool downstairs. Ha! But those of us who didn't get excused, were told our service ended and we could go back to the Jury Room and be released!

The giddy group made its way to the clerk's desk and gladly turned in our badges and received a letter stating we were free for the next three years! We cast a sorrowful eye towards those still waiting and laughed, laughed as we made our way outside to freedom.

Despite the ravings of the Brazilian government and the murderous thugs at the UN, the people of Brazil overwhelmingly voted to maintain their rights to self protection by rejecting a gun ban referendum.

Of course as the report is from the Enemy Press BBC, the slant is obvious. "Last year, there were 36,000 shooting deaths. The UN says guns are the biggest cause of death among young people in Brazil. The immediate consequence of the referendum is that gun shops will remain open." Actually, the immediate consequence is that the people there are still able to protect themselves.

The BBC is surprised that the ban vote failed miserably, "given the horrific scale of gun violence in Brazil." As seen in America numerous times, the press can't fathom that people might want access to firearms for self protection. They believe that people don't want them, but the forces that support the right to bear arms are always able to trick the voters. "The defeated 'Yes' campaign had enjoyed an early lead in the opinion polls, but it was quickly outmanoeuvred." Outmaneuvered. Not defeated on its lack of merit, but voters were duped into voting against it. "The 'No' campaign convinced voters that the proposed ban would have no effect on criminals, on the grounds that criminals do not buy guns legally in shops." Convinced that criminals don't obey laws? Really? How many times have we heard from criminals that they indeed do not purchase guns legally? Multiple times, yet the press seems to think they do.

The Enemy Press BBC quotes one slum resident who was opposed to the ban. "'If I had the money, I would have a weapon to try to protect myself and my family... The police are never going to arrive in time.' Maria, Shantytown resident." Hmm, same outlook as here. She understands that she cannot count on help arriving in time so she must be responsible for herself. We have seen courts in America rule that the police have no duty to protect individuals, but are for general safety purposes.

"It also argued that a gun ban would be a breach of civil rights." Correct. All people have a right to protect themselves, even non-Americans! "Beni Barbosa, the 'No' campaign spokesman, said: 'We managed to get our message across that Brazilians have individual rights which the state cannot take away. Here, people were not choosing whether to have a gun or not. They were voting for their rights to choose.'"

Of course, the gun grabbers deny this reason for their failure. "Anti-gun campaigners said the swing away from a 'Yes' vote was the result of people's desire to protest against the government's security policy. 'We didn't lose because Brazilians like guns. We lost because people don't have confidence in the government or the police,' said Denis Mizne, of anti-violence group Sou da Paz. 'The 'No' campaign was much more effective. They are talking about a right to have a gun - it is a totally American debate.'" Wrong, it's a totally Human Right, not some false right that the Turtle Bay Tyranny Society or the US courts find each week. The right to self protection exists everywhere for everyone. These people know it, they just don't like it because an armed populace anywhere is a threat to their tyranny.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

The Enemy Press AP reported today that Michael Chertoff, the Homland Security Department Chairman, "promised Tuesday to end the 'catch and release' policy that has allowed tens of thousands of non-Mexican illegal aliens to disappear within the United States."

It's certainly a start. However notice the emphasis by the AP on "non-Mexican illegal aliens" as if this is main source of illegal aliens.

Unfortunately later in the story the AP decides to editorialize instead of reporting the facts. Senator John Cornyn, "a leading proponent of changing immigration policy, said the Judiciary Committee, now occupied with Supreme Court nominations and other issues, won't put together an immigration bill until at least January. That would push the politically sensitive issue into an election year, adding another factor of difficulty in getting a bill through Congress. Leaders in both the House and Senate have suggested taking up a more narrow bill this year that concentrates on beefing up enforcement, leaving the tougher issue of reforming the system for a later day." Why would it be harder to pass reform during an election year? Oh, wait, there are those opposed to protecting America in positions of power in the country. Complete reformation of the immigration laws in this country should be pursued during an election year, that way the people can see who is committed to protecting the territorial integrity of America and working to keep evildoers and others lawbreakers out of the US. We can already tell that certain officials from certain eastern states are hostile to continued American sovereignty by their words like "passing the global test," and "Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - US management."

Although Secretary Chertoff said the right things, it appears that the idea of unfettered immigration in time of war still holds. President Bush would like to pass a guest worker program, however, while America is under attack and the borders aren't sealed, it doesn't appear to be a good idea to invite in more people. Either way, no one seems to offer an immediate removal program for illegals. "Cornyn and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., are sponsoring a bill that would give illegal immigrants five years to leave the country, but allow them to return through legal channels, including a guest worker program." At least this is the lesser of the reform plans. From the usual suspects comes this plan: "Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., back a bill that would let illegal immigrants apply for a temporary work visa for up to six years, after which they must return home or apply for permanent residency." How about immediate removal from the country and a blacklist so those who illegally enter again will be incarcerated for five years and the cost will be borne by the home countries of the lawbreakers? America can cut foreign aid to those countries who are the home countries of the illegals.

Of course the grievance lobby for lawbreakers can be expected to raise alarms over supposed "rights" of the lawbreakers to come to America and use taxpayer's money to drain citizen's social services. Race hustlers, America Haters, Bush Haters, conservative haters and groups like the ACLU will be out in force and joined together to balkanize America and destroy the common culture of freedom and liberty. The only thing to do is to call and write your Representatives and Senators to insist that they take up real immigration reform and protect America.

Monday, October 17, 2005

The Enemy Press AP reported on a US aerial strike against terrorist forces and highlighted the deaths of bystanders. As a way to attack the troops, it's emphasized that over half of the reported number killed were "civilians."

The AP links this story with their obvious discomfort that the Iraqis have "apparently passed" the draft constitution. Prior days coverage lead with a headline "Sunnis Appear To Fall Short In Iraq Vote."

Of course, that's the whole rationale of the election isn't it? Pacify the angry minority who were oppressing the majority of the population. It isn't about the freedom of Iraq for the Enemy Press, it's about denigrating the freedom Iraq now has, because President Bush did it with Britain and Australia and other freedom loving countries, instead of international thug governments and those who profited by Saddam remaining in power. (see France, Germany)

"On referendum day, a roadside bomb killed five U.S. soldiers in a vehicle in the Al-Bu Ubaid village on the eastern outskirts of Ramadi. On Sunday, a group of about two dozen Iraqis gathered around the wreckage; they were hit by U.S. airstrikes, the military and witnesses said." The AP indicates two sources for this tidbit, but doesn't indicate who said what, so we are to assume both sources agreed with this statement. However, the next paragraph says, "The military said in a statement that the crowd was setting another roadside bomb when F-15 warplanes hit them, killing around 20 people, described by the military as 'terrorists.'" So what happened? It is quite possible that the crowd gathered to examine the wreckage, however, the could still be active participants in the terrorist activity plaguing Iraq. It's also likely that the incident happened exactly as the military said. With the Enemy Press, it's more likely that the military version is the truth, and it has to be opposed by a competing "truth" put forth by the enemy.

Another incident with "civilian" casualties happened the same day. "The other deaths occurred in the nearby village of Al-Bu Faraj. The military said a group of gunmen opened fire on a Cobra attack helicopter that had spotted their position. The Cobra returned fire, killing around 10. The men ran into a nearby house, where gunmen were seen unloading weapons when an F/A-18 warplane struck the building with a bomb, killing 40 insurgents, the military said." Clear after action report with details. The opposite side said, "Witnesses said at least 14 of the dead were civilians. First, one man was wounded in an airstrike, and when he was brought into a nearby building, warplanes struck it, said the witnesses, who refused to give their names overs (sic) concerns about their safety." Right, same supposed incident. Civilians just happen to be in the area of a terrorist attack and just happen to go into the same building as the terrorists. And why won't they give their names? Fears of reprisal? Not likely, it seems more likely that other Iraqis could identify these anonymous witnesses as terrorist leaders or sympathizers. Just to be on the safe side, this little bit of information was added to the story. "An Associated Press stringer later saw the 14 bodies and the damaged building. He said residents, many of them crying, removed the bodies and buried them, some in wooden coffins, others simply wrapped in white cloth. One of the bodies was that of a boy who appeared to be between the ages of 10 and 15, the stringer said." An anonymous "stringer" corroborated the anti-military side. Is this the same type of stringers who magically happen to be at the site where car bombs and other attacks took place earlier in the "insurgency" campaign? Are they afraid to name the stringer because the name would be linked to terrorist supporting Al Jazeera? Looking at the track record of the AP, that's probably why the stringer wasn't named.

Another day at the office for the Enemy Press, denigrate the troops, deny the truth, and destroy hope in Iraq.

Unbelieveable! I'm spittin' mad. I brought home a new member of the family yesterday. I read the manual, I worked the action and checked out the safety. I loaded the magazine with snap caps, cocked the lever, pulled the trigger, cocked the lever, ejected the first cap, attempted to close the action and load cap number two and the moth....................itch jammed!!!!! The second freaking snap cap jammed!!!! I had the rifle home for less than an hour and it's unuseable. Now I have to pay someone to fix it!!!!!! Hopefully one of my shooting friends can get a gunsmith to do it for me for free. I'm not qualified to do any smithing myself and I'm darn sure not going to void the warranty by fooling with it.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

The Enemy Press AP trumpets a "poll" that declares most people believe George Bush's presidency a failure. Of course we never really find out exactly who is being polled. Although a clue can be found. The article states that the poll sample was 1500.

"Forty-one percent of respondents said Bush's presidency will be seen as unsuccessful in the long run, while 26 percent said the opposite. Thirty-five percent said it was too early to tell, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press...Seven in 10 said they want the next president to offer policies and programs that are different from the Bush administration's...By a 2-1 margin, people said the Bush administration has had a negative impact on politics and the way government works...By 47 percent to 30 percent, those surveyed said Bush has improved the situation with national security...." Here's the important part: "Republicans give the president mixed reviews in many of these areas. Almost half of Republicans said Bush's policies have made the deficit worse and just 12 percent say he has improved that situation."

So what do we see? Fewer than half believe the presidency is unsuccessful. Seventy percent want different policies. Twice as many people believe President Bush has worsened relations between politics and the people. Rather large numbers, except for the view that national security has improved. Contrast that with the fact that the pollsters state "Republicans give the president mixed reviews in many of these areas." Mixed reviews. Nowhere near those numbers given above. Who then were the negative responders? Democrats? Bush Haters? Perhaps, how else to interpret the disparity in numbers?

Do seventy percent of Americans really want the next president to have diametrically opposed ideas and plans for the country? Do you really want to live under a Kerry or Kennedy or Clinton administration when their actions and words have shown they revile the country that gives them money and power? Does America really want the evildoers and thug murderers at the UN to have more of a say over our way of life? Socialized, or rather, slave state, medical systems are falling apart all over the world. Does America really want such a system imposed on the people? Does America really want to change course in the War on Terror and become a nation of appeasers? Does America really want their taxes to be raised to confiscatory European levels that offers nothing but misery? Does America really want to have its Constitution subordinated to international compacts and agreements that are incompatible with our historic freedoms and liberty?

The answer should be a resounding NO! However, with the Enemy Press doing all it can to denigrate the president and pushing its agenda of demonizing the troops and their struggles for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's painfully obvious that they still have enough power to convince those who pay no attention to the state of the world that this country is on the road to ruin. Sadly, nothing short of censorship may save America. These fifth columnists must not destroy the will of the country to see this twilight struggle against evil through to the victory we must have. All the "children" they proclaim to care about deserve to have the free America that we have had. We owe it to them to stay the course and elect as the next president someone who will complete the job started by President Bush.

Imagine Ancient Rome! Here's how: "An exhibition amid the Roman Forum invites visitors to don 3-D glasses and watch the alluring dance of a slave who has been dead for two millennia, or stroll through the streets of ancient Rome with the click of a mouse."A new way to see Rome as it was. This is a great idea. Walk through the crowded streets and into the city's shops in three dimensions. Unfortunately it's only available in Trajan's Forum. Perhaps someday a version will be available in America.

Fox News reports that a large number of Iraqis voted in the constitutional referendum. Very little violence was reported, dashing the hopes of the Enemy Press that the vote would be marred by terrorist attacks.

"In the south, Shiite women in head-to-toe veils and men emerged from the poll stations flashing victory signs with fingers stained with violet ink, apparently responding in mass to the call by their top cleric to support the charter."

Although some Sunni areas reported low turnout or a turnout expected to vote no, "Overall turnout was about 61 percent and surpassed 66 percent in seven of Iraq's 18 provinces, including key Sunni Arab-majority ones, according to initial estimates, election officials said Saturday."

It's possible that the heavy turnout in the Sunni areas of the country could be a sign, that the constitution would be rejected as a two thirds no vote in three provinces would nullify the constitution.

What happens if the "No" vote prevails? Hopefully Iraqis will not have to find out. But if the constitution is rejected , expect the terrorist attacks to continue and worsen and their friends in the Enemy Press will no doubt increasingly call for a pullout of American troops no matter what the cost. Dooming the Iraqis to a possible civil war all to satisfy their Bush Hatred.

Friday, October 14, 2005

No not really. The Enemy Press AP reports that India and other countries want western countries to cut farmer subsidies as they say it depresses their domestic production and ruins their farmers. "'India cannot open its markets so that the Indian farmer who earns a dollar a day now earns 50 cents a day or nothing,' said Kamal Nath, India's trade minister. 'We cannot have the Indian farmer competing against the U.S. government, rather than the U.S. farmer.'" Boy, does he have it wrong. The US government pays farmers not to produce, although it does offer price supports to certain industries. If you really competed against the American farmer, India and other countries would be swamped with American food.

"In developing countries, Nath said, high tariffs offer protection for domestic producers against what he called unfair competition from the EU, United States and other heavy subsidizers. It is unrealistic for the United States to expect poor countries to dramatically reduce tariffs in exchange for "no real cuts" in U.S. subsidies to its farmers, he added." So, in other words, they want to protect their producers and harm ours, but if we protect ours it's unfair. Our production and food prices only seem unfair because we have passed the subsistence barrier. America and other Western countries industrialized and improved agriculture allowing excess production. Developing countries need to do the same. Perhaps by reforming society from caste systems and other barriers which force people to use human power to produce, these countries could increase their own production to create desirable food for export. People always want to eat, and will eat as much as they can get, the food just needs to be available at a low price.

At the end of the day all these proposals come down to is "America, cut your help to your farmers, but we'll keep doing it for ours."

Right from the start the Enemy Press AP states that the president "choreographed" his teleconference with the troops to shore up his ratings. Apparently the Enemy Press believes that all activities must be spontaneous and unscripted and unsupervised. Sorta like "happenings" during their hippie days.

They spend most of the story telling about how a deputy assistant defense secretary went around like a second AD from Hollywood and set the scene and prepped the dialog. "'I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me,' Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

'OK, so let's just walk through this,' Barber said. 'Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?'

'Captain Smith,' Kennedy said.

'Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?' she asked.

'Captain Kennedy,' the soldier replied.

And so it went."

See, all set up, all ready for jingoism. That Bush is going to set this up to fool the public into thinking the war's going well, he wants to bring up his approval ratings.

AP tells you so here: "'So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory,' Bush said. The president told them twice that the American people were behind them. You've got tremendous support here at home,' Bush said."

So right after that the AP injects this little infection: "Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake." And what exactly was the question? "Do you think it was a mistake to remove a psychopath and his killer sons from power and replace it with a democratic government?" No most likely not, or the American public would have been more supportive. Because that's exactly what's been done. Over 25 million people in Iraq have been freed from a totalitarian regime, Mistake? No! The right thing to do.

Of course, no story is complete without an appearance of a so-called anti-war activist. "Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, (Operation Big Lie) an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a 'carefully scripted publicity stunt.' Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said. 'If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference,' Rieckhoff said. 'He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains.'" Really? Officers don't know anything about what's going on there? You mean like this guy?

Rieckhoff insinuates that the troops don't support the war. As if all soldiers were Pablo Paredes. Sorry, that won't wash. America knows what the real soldiers think, As for this "advocacy group," it is run by a Kerry supporter and staffed with members who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Typical Hate America, Hate Bush people.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Neil Cavuto had Tom Adkins on his program today. The subject was mortgage interest deductions. As Parts Unknown contains a single family dwelling, it was a segment of "interest." CommonConservative.com has been added to the blogroll, it's a site worth checking out for those of a conservative or libertarian bent.

Massachusetts has been named the "Smartest State" by a polling organization. Yeah, if'n they's so smart why do they keep votin' in Kerry and Kennedy and let their gun rights be taken away? Smart, real smart.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

This is funny. Well, not really. The EU Court Of Human Rights (huh?) has ruled that Anheuser-Busch can't sell beer in Portugal under their long time Budweiser label. How is it that the jurisdiction of a so-called human rights court covers anything about trademarks? Is it a human right to drink beer with a certain name? Why does Busch's opponent in the case have a human right to use the Budweiser name when Busch created the label over twenty years before the other company did? I claim racism. The EU is racist against American companies. How else to explain Microsoft's problems in the EU. If they're not racist it must be Bush Derangement Syndrome. They must have mistaken Busch for Bush and so they just had to rule against them. Silly Europeans.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

It's official, the Nobel Committee has become afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

"Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their drive to curb the spread of atomic weapons by using diplomacy to resolve standoffs with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs." What? Drive? They didn't drive, they were taken for a ride by both Iran and North Korea. Nothing is resolved in regards to either nation. Iran has reactivated its nuclear plants and is striving to create an "Islamic Bomb," and North Korea is negotiating with the US and its allies, not the UN.

The laff riot continues. "The Nobel Committee's decision lent support to negotiations and inspections, not military action, as the best way to handle volatile nations. It also was seen as a message to the Bush administration, which invaded Iraq after claiming U.N. efforts to eradicate Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions had failed and which opposed ElBaradei's appointment to another term." Except for the fact that ElBaradei and company were led around by the nose throughout Iraq and were unable to find anything and inspected nothing that Saddam didn't know about in advance. Yes, another supposed slap at President Bush. They think they're so clever, first a failed president, now a failed UN functionary. Who's next, an open terrorist? Whoops, already gave it to Arafat.

"ElBaradei said in Vienna, Austria, that the prize 'sends a strong message' about the agency's disarmament efforts (yeah, we'll be fooled all the time) and will strengthen his resolve to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons." How, when you haven't even done it yet? "'The award basically sends a very strong message, which is: Keep doing what you are doing,' the 63-year-old Egyptian said. 'It's a responsibility but it's also a shot in the arm. They want to give the agency and me a shot in the arm to move forward.'" Keep doing nothing? What they need is a shot to the groin, not a shot in the arm. How deluded these people are, or what audacity they have to claim to be something they are not. Listen to these words, "ElBaradei also refused to endorse Washington's contention that Iran was working to make nuclear weapons and disputed U.S. assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq had an active atomic weapons program - both claims that remain unproven, despite growing suspicions about Tehran's nuclear agenda." Except for the fact that Iran has publicly stated they are working to create a bomb and destroy Israel and components of nuclear materials and equipment were found in Iraq! Is this stupidity or complicity?

No, there is no other conclusion to be reached except the Committee's desire was to insult President Bush. Even those who have no connection to America are afflicted with this debilitating disease. It causes the mind to cease to function and the soul to evaporate. Pity them...and also laugh. Your awards to each other mean nothing to those who are actually working to make the world safer. Note to the Nobel Committee, "We're laughing at the superior intellect."

The UK Enemy Press Guardian "Newspaper" gleefully reported that the little mice of Europe and other countries made a bold statement concerning America's internet and control over domains and web traffic.

"Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium." And how do you unarmed half-men and appeasers think you'll be able to take it? With high sounding rhetoric and fancy speeches? Not likely.

The "newspaper" continues, "the question of who has control has become critical. And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it. But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's foundation - its 'root servers', which act as the basic directory for the whole internet." Did you read that carefully? America created and funded and helped expand the internet (sorry Algore). No one else had the ability or the resources to do it. America set up the protocols and assigned a free market company to run it. Perhaps that's what the increasingly totalitarian Europe hates and fears, someone not the government having control over access.

Further on we see a list of the countries who want to take control. Hmm, Brazil, Ok, maybe not too bad, but look at the rest of the listed participants: China, Cuba, Iran, and some unnamed African countries. Oh, yes, a veritable murderers row. The list is comprised of murderous thug governments who would not make access easier for their citizens -or should that be subjects?- but would restrict or disallow access to anyone but the favored elite ruling few. Of course America didn't give them any hope that it would happen. As per usual in these times, the deranged suffocating dead hand of the EU steps up and declares a proposal to create "a new forum that would decide public policy, and a 'cooperation model' comprising governments that would be in overall charge." Really? And how would you control something you don't own? By bribery, offering oil for control, or just whining about it until the adult (America) gives in?

Again however, no soap. The American representative at the conference where the Europeans deluded themselves into thinking they had any power said America "'can't in any way allow any changes' that went against the 'historic role' of the US in controlling the top level of the internet." Now he made the castrati of the world mad. The Guardian "newspaper" shrilly hypes a belief that "the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. (how can you give yourself something you have no right to?) It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce." After you've stopped laughing, consider what they reported. They, the powerless mice will congratulate themselves on belling the cat, and they crow that the cat won't do anything about it. Well, how about declaring any such statement or action by these countries as an act of war? Are you ready to fight for control of the internet? Oh, wait, you have no armies. You have no will to fight. If you did, there would be no war on terror now, it would be finished.

Clearly this action must be stopped somehow by America. President Bush must make it quite clear to all countries that control of the infrastructure of the internet will remain in American hands. We cannot allow the evildoers in the UN and murderous thug governments to have any control whatsoever. Freedom exists on the internet because America controls it. No matter how many speeches are made in the Turtle Bay Tyranny Society or in Brussels about freedom, their actions show that any control by these people will result in repression if not outright destruction of those the rulers deem unfit to express themselves.

If by some unfortunate happenstance America acquiesces in this power play, we must be prepared to raise the banner of rebellion and a legion of hackers must descend on the internet and destroy it if necessary to spoil the control of those harboring ill will to liberty. Freedom of the internet and freedom of all types is endangered by this plan. It must be defeated or the internet destroyed.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

So it appears that the Justices were engaging in a free for all in the courtroom. Maybe Ginsburg faced off with O'Connor in a swordfight. Maces at ten paces for Scalia and Kennedy.

No, it's just the usual from the Enemy Press. The Court is considering the role of government in physician assisted suicide. The AP apparently doesn't like the fact that Chief Justice Roberts "stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives." Clashed! Clashed they say! Was it anything of the sort? No, there is nothing in the story that implies any clashes between Justices. The implied clash is between what was supported before by the thuggish former Attorney General Janet "Waco" Reno and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Here we see more bias from the Enemy Press. "The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. (And what does that have to do with anything? Oh, wait, Christians and Bush bad, blow jobs and forcing Cubans back to Castro's hellhole, good) Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration." And? And? Perhaps Reno's conclusion was incorrect? Well, it can't be, can it? She was Clinton's Attorney General.

AP also puts in this little nugget from a court watcher, "...Van Aelstyn says John Ashcroft failed to address public interest before imposing his 2001 directive to arrest doctors who assist patients in the process of dying." Yup, just imposed his ideas on everyone else without so much as a by your leave. What a dirty trick, making people not kill someone!

Apparently the AP wants physician assisted suicide to pass as seen by the presentations of Justice Ginsburg and Souter as soft hearted heroes who only want to ease the pain of cancer afflicted citizens. "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable. Justice David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products but 'that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here.'" Let's see, forbid to rape good, forbid to kill, bad.

Now here's the other side. "Roberts and Antonin Scalia appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine. Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself (ooh, he thrust himself) in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. Before Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson could finish his first sentence Roberts interrupted with the first of many questions. 'Doesn't that undermine and make enforcement impossible?' he asked Atkinson. (The nerve of Roberts! Asking questions! And interrupting, interrupting!) He posed just two questions of the Bush administration lawyer. (That settles it, he's bought and paid for by President Bush, he's the president's man...oh, yeah.) At one point, a flustered Atkinson said, 'I'm starting to be backed into a corner.'" (And I'm going to cry, sniff.) Just gotta bring out the "I'm threatened by conservative speech" excuse. Perhaps you were just unprepared.

There is one important bit of information that the Enemy Press does include in the story. It appears that "It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.... The two justices who seemed most conflicted were Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Breyer's wife counsels young cancer patients. Besides Ginsburg, the justices who have had cancer are O'Connor and John Paul Stevens." Should any of these then, be deciding this case? It appears that all of these justices listed has a bias one way or the other. Can we get a fair ruling? Justices have recused themselves for lesser things than this. For such a charged question, it seems that all the Justices listed above must recuse themselves. We must rule according to the Constitution, not our feelings and personal situation. It's clear this must be done, no matter how much it hurts the Enemy Press and the supporters of each side.

It appears that the envious French still can't take defeat like men. Yet another attempt is being made to link Lance Armstrong with banned substances.

"The International Cycling Union has appointed a Dutch lawyer to conduct an independent investigation into allegations Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. The cycling body said Thursday that Emile Vrijman and his law firm would 'undertake a comprehensive investigation regarding all issues concerning the testing conducted by the French laboratory of urine samples' from the '99 Tour."

As seenbelow, a French paper declared Lance guilty of doping because it said it had test results proving positive tests came from Armstrong's urine samples. It was later revealed that the original samples have been destroyed, and corroborating the alleged positives is now impossible.

Therefore two competing organizations now have declared their intent to find the real killers, er, determine the truth of the allegations. The World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Cycling Union "have been engaged in a bitter feud over the case. Last month, WADA chief Dick Pound accused former UCI president Hein Verbruggen of leaking documents about the alleged positive tests to L'Equipe. He also questioned UCI's willingness to fully investigate the allegations. UCI denied Pound's accusations and claimed he was blocking its investigation by withholding information." We'll find out, no we'll find out, no we will, no we will, blah, blah, blah. Let them go round and round in circles. If they haven't noticed, Lance Armstrong has retired and even if they decide he did have a banned substance, it has been reported that nothing will happen anyway. Ah, the ineffectual French....

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

The Enemy Press AP reports that confessed criminal Sandy Berger was caught speeding in Virginia. Berger, who admitted stealing classified material from the National Archives by stuffing them down his pants, was ticketed for doing over 85 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone.

"He was stopped on Sept. 10, and two days later he informed the probation office of the U.S. District Court that he had been speeding because he was late to a meeting and was unaware of how fast he was traveling."

Yeah, right. We know he wasn't paying attention because he had his hands down his pants.

Certain Senators have decided that America needs guidelines on alleged torture of terrorists and unlawful combatants. Rightly the Administration opposes these attempts to give the enemy constitutional protections.

Leading the charge for coddling killers is Senator McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. "McCain's amendment would ban the use of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' against anyone in U.S. custody and require all U.S. troops to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate suspects. Graham's amendment would define 'enemy combatant' and put into law procedures for prosecuting detainees at Guantanamo Bay." Apparently these two don't understand we are at war. Spending time making guidelines is wasteful as there are already interrogation rules in effect. However, it seems that Senator McCain, who was tortured himself, now believes that anything can be construed as torture and he opposes it. His proposal would seem to ban things such as panties on a head or insulting jokes. Things that anyone else would see as not reaching the status of torture. Of these two proposals, Senator Graham's is the more dangerous. We already have definitions of enemy combatant. We have a definition of an unlawful combatant. The world community that these people seem to worship has already defined these terms. It seems the current push is to redefine these terms to the detriment of the GWOT. Let's state for the record again and for the benefit of those who don't understand. All conventions on war give absolutely no protections to those people such as the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. They are subject to immediate execution, they have no right to a trial, although our clemency will give them one. They certainly have no protections of our Constitution, a constitution they would destroy with a victory over us.

McCain also said, "'Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear consistent standard.'" Correct. Interrogate, execute, imprison for life, or release. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.

Of course if Senators McCain and Graham are unsuccessful in shackling the prosecution of the war, the sinister side of the aisle is ready to jump in. "As they did before, Democrats also plan to continue to push their own proposal that would establish an independent commission to investigate allegations of prisoner abuse. The Pentagon already has done several of its own investigations and argues that another would be redundant. But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said those reviews weren't thorough enough. 'This is a rich target for a true investigation,' he said Wednesday. He accused the White House of issuing a 'false threat' to veto the bill over detainee amendments." No, actually President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld are the real targets for them. Levin is probably correct however that the veto threat is false.

Piling on this so-called bandwagon is "list of retired generals and admirals...." It would be interesting to know how many of these officers are considered "perfumed princes" and Clinton promoted soldiers sympathetic to the other side as long as President Bush is injured. These officers wonder if clear guidance is why the alleged torture of enemy combatants and unlawful combatants took place. Also in the picture is the so-called Human Rights Watch, who apparently doesn't know what the terms mean. They have accused the Army's 82nd Airborne Division with torturing prisoners from 2002 to 2003. Their proof? "Army Capt. Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne was one of the soldiers who claimed that he had heard about widespread prisoner abuse while serving in Iraq." Heard about. Not participated in, not observed, not listening to. Hearsay evidence is what they have to accuse the soldiers. This "evidence" wouldn't hold up in a court, yet it's damning against the administration just because it's George Bush in the White House.

The military has investigated claims of torture and has punished those who have been proven to have abused prisoners. We do not need to continually rehash the same charges again and again. This only emboldens those who wish to defeat us, whether here or abroad.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Rather boring day here in Parts Unknown. SexyGirl and HoneyGirl are off doing girl stuff. I'm doing chores and feel little like blogging today. I'm updating links and adding new ones. Here's a little time waster. No right or wrong answers. Post your choices, let's have a light post instead of heavy politics. I'm tagging some people so please come on in and sit a spell.

Monday, October 03, 2005

The UK Times recently reported that certain members of the Russian government want to take Lenin's body off of display near the Kremlin and bury him in St Petersburg.

"Georgi Poltavchenko, a former KGB officer and close friend of President Putin, suggested yesterday that Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders no longer deserved their resting places next to the Kremlin. 'Our country has been shaken by strife, but only a few people were held accountable for that in their lifetime,' Mr Poltavchenko said. 'I don’t think it’s fair that those who initiated that strife remain in the centre of our state....'"

The Enemy Press AP reported today that the US Supreme Court actively aided the illegal gun ban in Washington DC by refusing to "block a lawsuit against gun manufacturers accused of negligence for firearms violence in the nation's capital. An appeals court had said that the District of Columbia government and individual gun victims, including a man who was left a quadriplegic after being shot in 1997, could sue under a D.C. law that says gun manufacturers can be held accountable for violence from assault weapons."

The continuance of this case shows how important it is for President Bush to nominate strict constructionists to the Court. All gun laws are patently unconstitutional. The sale and distribution of firearms is neither illegal nor immoral nor unethical. What the lower court judges have said is that all these legal activities can result, through no fault of company, in a bankrupting lawsuit, putting thousands of people out of work and endangering the existence of the Second Amendment.

Fortunately the Senate has passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and in the House the bill is pending. When the bill is passed by the House all these unconstitutional lawsuits will immediately be terminated with prejudice by the new Law. Not only is the Second Amendment violated by DCs gun ban, it also denies Congressional perogative to regulate business. "'The District of Columbia's statute threatens ... gun manufacturers with draconian penalties based on their lawful out-of-state commercial activity - and on the criminal misconduct of third parties over whom the manufacturers have no control,' justices were told in a filing by former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, now the lawyer for the gun companies."

Exactly correct, however some judges don't seem to understand the clear meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. "'No due process issue is raised by legislation that seeks to redress injuries suffered by district residents and visitors resulting from the manufacture and distribution of a particular class of firearms whose lethal nature far outweighs their utility,' Judge Michael Farrell wrote." "Firearms whose lethal nature far outweighs their utility?" Their lethal nature is their utility! Clearly Judge Farrell is a danger to society and the Constitution. This sinister statement shows either his contempt for the Second Amendment or his ignorance of it. No matter what the answer, judges like him can only be contained by conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

Gun owners and those who support the right to keep and bear arms must contact their representative and demand that S. 397 be passed. Gun manufacture is essential to each American's Second Amendment right. Without gunmakers, the supply will dry up and history has shown that those in power who hate liberty will try to confiscate and restrict ownership of guns.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

The headline for this story says "Norton: Latest Character Is Like the U.S." Wow! A comparison between the US and the Good Samaritan! This news has been kept under wraps. It's unknown at this time which studio is making the "Good Samaritan."

Oh, wait. That's not what he means. Norton climbed out of his sewer and said "his latest role as an arrogant British doctor out to change the world is a little like today's America. 'In fact, the United States today keeps on making the same sort of mistakes,' Norton was quoted as saying by the Chinese-language newspaper Shanghai Morning Post.

'We force those methods we think are useful on a few countries, hoping to make a few changes. The good thing is that, in the movie, I realize my mistakes in the end,' the 36-year-old actor said in the interview, published Friday."

Of course, he doesn't have the nerve to say any of that here, no, as per usual for these "heroes" they go overseas to spew their idiocy. Norton goes to China to insult America. Well, that's where he's filming, however, he doesn't have to say anything. Like the rest of the loony Hollywood left, he just can't contain himself.

He's learned his talking point lines, although they have no basis in reality. America is not arrogant in its actions in Afghanistan or Iraq. Over fifty million people were freed with the overthrow of the Taliban and the deposition of Saddam. Don't these role players care? Norton thinks that democracy is incompatible with the Middle Eastern mind? It's a mistake to try to bring freedom to those who've never had it? What claptrap. What racist drivel! He doesn't think that Afghans and Iraqis are able to want to choose their own way? They want to be dominated? Garbage!

It gets tiring, very tiring to hear these people day in and day out speaking on things they have no knowledge of. Be silent. Say nothing, take your fantastic sums of money to dance around on screen and speak other people's words, and indulge in all your fantasies and perversions. Your opinions are not wanted by those who see what's going on in the world. Your celebrity imparts no special truth to your words. Go back to your sewers Norton and muck about in your reality based existence and leave the real world to its work.

You're not an American Idol. Last year's winner of the American Idol contest -whatever that is - announced that she's functionally illiterate. Imagine all the people who wished they were her. Well, let that be a lesson to you. Don't idolize celebrities, there are too manyotherpeoplewhodeserveitmore.

About Me

This site's comment policy:
As I believe in the Constitution and freedom, commenters are allowed to post regardless of their political or social views. Even Europeans!
Keep your comments on topic.
That doesn't mean that any silly comments without some idea of backup won't be moderated to make the poster look foolish.
ScottG